Henry Siegman writing in the Huffington Post:
There is therefore something bizarre in Israel's insistence that condemnations of its violations of international law are not intended to challenge the illegality of its settlements and continuing occupation but the legitimacy of its very existence. If Israel keeps it up, that insistence may well turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Perhaps Israel's right wing government believes that by accusing the international community of seeking to undermine its existence it will distract attention from an increasingly untenable claim that Israel is a model democracy that also enshrines Jewish values. Both claims have been undermined by its settlements policy and its determination to maintain the status quo, bringing into question the very foundation of America's "special relationship" with Israel.
When a state's denial of the individual and national rights of a large part of its population becomes permanent - a permanence that has been the goal of Israel's settlement project from its very outset (and that many believe has been achieved) - that state ceases to be a democracy. When the reason for that double disenfranchisement is that population's ethnic and religious identity, the state is practicing a form of apartheid or racism. The democratic dispensation that Israel provides for its mostly Jewish citizenry cannot hide its changing (or changed) character. A political arrangement that limits democracy to a privileged class and keeps others behind military checkpoints, barbed-wire fences and separation walls does not define democracy. It defines its absence.
Siegman is not saying that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”. He is saying that it is going down the wrong track and needs to reform.
Your use of the term “delegitimizing itself” sounds strong, but actually feeds right into the right’s accusations.
Is that your intention? To give the Israeli right a cheap substantiation?
“Siegman is not saying that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”. He is saying that it is going down the wrong track and needs to reform.”
Wropng Witty, Siegman is saying percisely that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”‘. There’s no point denying it.
The last paragraph is the most telling.
“Israel’s problem is not the Palestinian or Arab refusal to recognize it as a Jewish state. It is, rather, the increasing difficulty of Jews familiar with Jewish values to recognize it as a Jewish state. ”
Siegman is already on the record as aknowledging that Israel has gone from being the only deocracy in the Middle East, to being the only apartheid state in the West.
Do us a favor and stop telling us how we should read what other people have written Witty. We’re adult enough to make up our own minds, and it’s not as if anyone is going to accept your version of it anyway.
Henry Siegman, formerly national director of the American Jewish Congress, wrote recently:
”As a result … Israel has crossed the threshold from ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.”
That sounds like a pretty definitive statement that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”.
Not sure how you could miss it, RW, but Siegman’s first sentence specifically refers to the right’s bellyaching that BDS = a threat to “the legitimacy of its very existence.”.
In the very next sentence, Siegman says, “If Israel keeps it up, that insistence may well turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Ergo, Phil-Adam’s headline is spot-on accurate.
I think Adam’s subject line is a very fair conclusion based on the content of
Siegmann’s writing provided. What wrong track are you talking about? You don’t say.
Yes, he is saying exactly that, in words that anyone can understand unless their state of denial has warped their ability.
the legitimacy of its very existence. If Israel keeps it up, that insistence may well turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Delegitimization implies no right to exist, no basis of existence as a state.
Seigman is NOT saying that. Adam is. You are, but Seigman isn’t.
He’s saying “reform”.
The word “reform” is not there. The words “legitimacy of its very existence” are there. That is what Seigman is talking about.
No wonder you don’t bother to read what people write, it gets in the way of just making up what you want to read.
Witty,
It would be helpful if you bothered to read the original article instead of surmising, inaccurately, what Seligman meant. In the original Seligman states it was Theodore Meron, the legal advisor to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, who sought to delegitimize the Israeli State. These are three of the paragraphs that precede the clip Adam used. You need to read the original before extrapolating.
Why did I write Seligman for Siegman? Sorry about that.
“Delegitimization implies no right to exist, no basis of existence as a state.”
No state has the right to exist.
“He’s saying “reform”.”‘
Which sentence is that? Please provide the exact quote in which the word “reform” is used Witty.
Maybe Richard is not too familiar with Jewish values to understand that Siegman in fact said exactly that in a nutshell? He juxtaposes hysterical accusations with facts on the ground circling the meaning of “legitimacy” to counter “delegitimizing”.
Adam this is the first time I noticed Richard attacking one of your headlines or is it Phil’s? Obvious, simple, perfect.
The real question is what does Adam mean?
If he means that Israel is losing its status as a legitimate government, to exist, then I’m summarizing and contrasting accurately.
If he’s saying that Israel is reducing its stature in the world, then I’m sorry if I misrepresented Adam’s headline.
Its clear to me that Seigman is speaking relatively, and the term delegitimizing is then the wrong word.
Witty, did you comprehend the original context MRW gave you?
Of course I am assuming you read it. Seigman is speaking relative to those who respond to criticism of Israeli conduct, especially its expanding settlements, by saying those critics are trying to delegitimize Israel as a state. Seigman concludes that such “pro-Israel” response to its critics might well turn out to be a self-fullfilling prophecy. Any need for reform implied by Siegman thus must include dropping the red herring (and subtle accusation of anti-semitism) delegitimization counter argument.
Siegman is not saying that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”. He is saying that it is going down the wrong track and needs to reform.
duh! Once again not addressing the fundamental points raised by Siegman in is article but nitpicking the choice of the words in the headline of the post. We’ve gone through this road before, haven’t we? The purpose is obvious; to derail the discussion by focusing on minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism. Doesn’t that constitute a form of trolling which the recent new comment rules were supposed to correct? Simply asking.
Of course, Siegman doesn’t specifically says that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”, i.e. he is not using those words exactly However, if one were to read the article in its entirety he states the following :
Israel’s problem is not the Palestinian or Arab refusal to recognize it as a Jewish state. It is, rather, the increasing difficulty of Jews familiar with Jewish values to recognize it as a Jewish state. Rather than demanding that Palestinians declaim on Israel’s democratic and Jewish identity, or conjuring non-existent threats to Israel’s existence, Netanyahu and his government would be better advised adjusting Israel’s policies toward a people that has lived under its unforgiving military occupation in a way that honors their country’s democratic and Jewish beginnings. That would contribute far more to its “legitimacy” and to its long-range security than its present undemocratic and very un-Jewish course.
In other words what Siegman is saying is that, were it not for the Jim Crow-like policies Israel imposes on Palestinian Israelis and the Apartheid-like policies Israel imposes on the Palestinian population in the OT, Israel’s “legitimacy” would not be put so much into question. It is precisely because of these policies that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”. Only a blind person would not see that.
Sorry! Typo – should read – …Siegman in his article…
I agree with Siegman’s points.
Adam is the author of the headline.
Who’s post is this then?
What is the point of this comment, Witty?
You didn’t agree with Siegman. You crammed the word “reform” into the photo of his mouth and agreed with that.
Witty, you do a LOT to give credence to the right wing in both countries (your “homeland” and the actual country you were born). Why is that? Why do you keep pumping artificial legitimacy into Likud and the Republican Party? What’s your motivation?
“Siegman is not saying that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”.”
I’m observing a pattern here..Witty always questions the poster’s interpretation and understanding of the articles linked to, thus, casting doubts over the integrity, the credibility if not the intelligence of the poster..Witty’s understanding of what he reads (more often than not he doesn’t) is always the right one even when evidently it’s not the case as observed above..No trick is too petty for Mr. Witty..
It’s called “creative accounting.”
Peculiar how you were bamboozled the other day by Shmuel’s used of the word “supremacist”, now you’re a human dictionary – thoroughly adept [sic] at interpreting what others mean.
Is my impression right that the discussion on this at HuffPo is better, more readable and less-trolled than I’d expect say a year ago?
once the truth finds the light of day it is pretty hard to get it back into the dark, that’s all
“Is my impression right that the discussion on this at HuffPo is better, more readable and less-trolled than I’d expect say a year ago?”
I’ve been observing the same trend too and it’s across the board.. Something is definitely changing..
I agree that in general the mood in article comments across the web has shifted in the past year but I’m not sure if that is so at HP – which I still read occasionally but not as much as I used to.
Though not present on this article (that I could see) the chief trolls are still active on HP – LonelyGod and StCuthbert, who run their blog Brothers of Judea, ostensibly to combat anti-semitism on HP but in practice, it exists to try and have any HP’ers who they disagree with booted. Speaking from experience, I can tell you disagreement means “we can’t refute your statements”. They run a blacklist and celebrate each time they get someone booted. On the odd occasion someone is booted by HP for genuine anti-semitism, but on the whole all you have to do to get on their list is present arguments they can’t refute.
* They’ve rebranded and got a new blog with the Horowitz/Pipes inspired name of ‘Huffington Post Monitor’. The old title ‘Brothers of Judea’ gave them away as settlers, though they claim to be Americans (living in America). I’m curious to know who funds them, they are on HP enough to qualify as full-time.
Instructions on how to get commentors booted:
link to hpmonitor.blogspot.com
The user profiles they’re “watching” (I am there!). It’s worth clicking onto some profiles to see how innocuous some of the comments are:
link to hpmonitor.blogspot.com
On their old blog they used to have a list of banned commenters. They appear to have dropped it.
They also run a list of articles by regular HP bloggers whose content they object. Check out the names: Max Blumenthal, Joseph Dana, Amy Goodman, Mya Guarnieri, Ahmed Moor, Sharmine Narwani, Daoud Kuttab, Iara Lee, MJ Rosenberg and others. It reads like an Honest Journalist honour roll!
Hilariously, after about a year in existence their blog has one regular commentor whose handle is absurdly “Norman F”. I remain convinced it’s a sock puppet account and in fact either StCuthbert or LonelyGod, posting comments so they don’t have zero comments on all articles. People just aren’t interested in their tripe.
Contrast that w/ Mondoweiss. Bucketloads of comments versus one. 2,224 twitter followers, versus 22. The War of Ideas, indeed.
A good description of the workings of these two influential & disruptive HP-posters, Sumud. And a very good description of systematic Hasbara. But they’re growing smaller.
If I remember well, some good HuffPo-author exposed these two (?). That is, she linked their HP-nicks to their blog. Light onto the insects! You already described the good ending.
Siegman writes well, but seems to be a victim of the US delusion that ‘democracy’ is the greatest and highest value. Israel hasn’t exactly ‘ceased to be a democracy’ [the worst insult that can ever be thrown in US political discourse]. Rather, Israel lacks a constitution to protect minority rights. It employs demographic engineering [the Law of Return] and gerrymandered borders to maintain Jewish privilege by majority vote.
Apartheid South Africa was nominally democratic, but drew internationally unrecognized borders around majority-black regions to denationalize and disenfranchise them. Israel has done the same in the West bank, exercising control through its PA quisling government, but extending no vote to the Palestinian majority (though settlers evidently get to cast absentee ballots, purely on the basis of Jewish ethnicity).
The problem in Israel is not lack of democracy; it’s apartheid. Democratically-imposed apartheid still sucks.
“Israel hasn’t exactly ‘ceased to be a democracy’ [the worst insult that can ever be thrown in US political discourse]. Rather, Israel lacks a constitution to protect minority rights”
A democracy is based on the notion that the state belongs to the citizens of that state. This is not so for 20% of citizens in Israel.
Thus Israel is both apartheid and undemocratic.
Israel has long ago delegitimised itself. Some are however waking up the fact.
Siegman points out (in the paragraph preceding the one that starts Adam’s quotation ) that incredibly brutal behavior does not “delegitimize” a state. Here’s the paragraph–
“Existing states do not lose their legitimacy because their governments engage in illegal behavior. There is a presumption in international law of state continuity even if the central government collapses and the state becomes a failed state, as has been the case with Somalia. For all of the international condemnations of the behavior of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the governments of Iran and North Korea, no one ever questioned those countries’ legitimacy.
There is therefore something bizarre …”
So saying a state has legitimacy is not exactly a rousing endorsement, if he’s also talking about North Korea and Saddam’s Iraq.
Siegman does get a little overly romantic at the end of the piece where he talks about Israel’s Jewish and democratic beginnings. That’s incoherent, part of the illogical liberal Zionist attempt at drawing an insupportable moral distinction between 1948 and 1967. I think Siegman probably understands this, if I remember his earlier writings correctly, but he’s probably trying to reach a Zionist audience. The problem with this (aside from the fact that it is false) is that once you concede a falsehood, you leave yourself open to counterarguments because your own arguments are faulty. That’s a moral I drew from reading Douglas Hofstadter writing about logic–from a contradiction, literally anything follows. In this case if one makes the artificial distinction between a supposedly just Israel before 67 and the bad Israel afterwards, then it opens the door for Zionists to complain that Palestinians and Arabs hated Israel before 67, as though they had no reason for their feelings. But I suppose in politics people don’t worry about logical and moral consistency too much, which is why politics is the way it is.
>> Most Israelis, particularly the present government, have been blithely indifferent to repeated international condemnations of Israel’s systematic theft of Palestinian territory on which it has been settling its own Jewish population in blatant violation of international law.
What does he mean by “international law”? There are no such laws, they’re merely suggestions.
>> Yet their reaction to what they see as an attack on the “legitimacy” of the State of Israel, a concept foreign to international law, seems to bring them to the edge of hysteria.
That’s because there’s no such thing as “international law”. There is only humanizing “the Other” and making “better wheels”.
>> In fact, Israel’s legitimacy within its 1967 borders has never been challenged by the international community. It is its behavior on territory beyond its own borders to which the international community – including every U.S. administration – has objected. To construe the condemnation of violations of international law as anti-Semitism is absurd.
Yes, it is. But that doesn’t seem to stop the spouters of such absurdities.
>> Rather than demanding that Palestinians declaim on Israel’s democratic and Jewish identity, or conjuring non-existent threats to Israel’s existence, Netanyahu and his government would be better advised adjusting Israel’s policies toward a people that has lived under its unforgiving military occupation in a way that honors their country’s democratic and Jewish beginnings. That would contribute far more to its “legitimacy” and to its long-range security than its present undemocratic and very un-Jewish course.
Very well said. Clear, concise, direct and unencumbered by pseudo-intellectual/-psychological/-philosophical blather.
What does he mean by “international law”? There are no such laws, they’re merely suggestions.
eljay, sometimes i find reading the entire article to be helpful.
last i heard the geneva convention isn’t a list of ‘suggestions’, it is international law.
>> annie: eljay, sometimes i find reading the entire article to be helpful.
I did read it. My dismissal of international laws as “suggestions” was a paraphrasing of someone else’s similar dismissal. The difference is that mine was made in jest. Guess I should have added a “winky” emoticon, but I thought my facetiousness was obvious. :-)
i hear ya now eljay, thanks for the followup.
There very much is a thing called international law. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions. Most nations, including Israel, are signatories to the GC and members of the UN. The rulings of the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions are also applied by the International Court at the Hague when there are international disputes which nations can not resolve. By signing the Geneva Convention and continuing to be members of the UN, nations are obliged to follow the legal rulings of these international bodies.
That is why Israel is in continual violation of international law because it refuses to abide by UN resolutions and the Geneva Convention regarding occupied Palestinian land. It has also defied the International Court of the Hague which has ruled that the separation barrier is illegal. Unfortunately there is little that these international bodies appear to be able to do to enforce international law.
Eljay,
So, the International Court of Justice does what in your esteemed opinion? I’d suggest you peruse the site before answering.
link to icj-cij.org
Siegman is not saying that “Israel is delegitimizing itself”.
did you read the article? that is precisely what Siegman is suggesting, that the conduct of Israel is threatening its legitimacy. I stopped counting, but Siegman uses the word ‘legitimacy’, or another word with that root, at least 5 times in the first five paragraphs. i can only shake my head in amazement in response to your bold, baseless assertions.
The original article contains: “Israel’s problem is not the Palestinian or Arab refusal to recognize it as a Jewish state. It is, rather, the increasing difficulty of Jews familiar with Jewish values to recognize it as a Jewish state.”
It is error, as we all know, to assume (or impute) uniformity to a large totality. “Jews familiar with Jewish values” is, sadly, apparently, silly. “Jewish values” (like “family values” — think Mormon polygamous families for a glimpse of the non-uniformity of “family values”, and never forget all those unmarried MM, FF, MF “families” ) includes BOTH looking out for all widows and all orphans, for example, and ALSO looking out for Jewish widows and Jewish orphans. The “stranger” may be a “Jewish stranger” or “any stranger”.
I greatly fear that the “Jewish State” of Israel looks all-too-Jewish to those who take the narrow view (a Jewish hang-nail is worth a Goyish life) although it may well be (and I hope it is so) that most Jews (including most US Jews) can come (if properly educated as to facts) to see the settlement project as not only illegal but also as non-Jewish. That’s how I see it. But I make little claim to know what “Jewish” means in the wide world or, especially, in the West Bank settlements. What do their rabbis tell us?
As a colonial venture from its inception, Zionist Israel no more has been a democracy than was apartheid South Africa. And like what happened in the last century to Europe’s colonizations of other people’s lands, Israel (not its peope) is headed for the dustbin of history. And anticipating the question often raised by Zionists -”Just as the U.S. would refuse to give Manhattan back to its original inhabitants, why, after all these years must we give back ‘our’ land to the Palestinians?” Why? Because millions of Palestinians still exist, in Palestine & elsewhere, that’s why; whereas, how many native Americans are left in Manhattan? And no, don’t dare go for genocide, Zionist Israel, because it’s clear (from the worldwide reaction to your attempt at slow motion genocide in Gaza) that you won’t be able to get away with it.
interesting development: info regarding Palestinian Authority officials
“According to the Palestinian man’s lawyer, who has kept in contact with the suspect by cellphone while he is in the embassy, the man is armed with a pistol and a knife. He claims that he is being pursued by the Israeli and Palestinian intelligence services because he has information that could “bring down several senior Palestinian Authority officials.”
No surprise. You don’t get into office in the PA without first selling out to the enemy.
I have a lot of respect for Siegman’s integrity and the long journey he has taken. But here, I agree mostly with what he says exists right now, and am disappointed that he does not offer an opinion as to what should be.
Siegman notes correctly that for the most part, the Israeli post-1967 occupation and settlement project is the subject of international criticism, while the legitimacy of the pre-67 Jewish state is not challenged. But Siegman himself is careful not to cross the boundary into questioning the concept of a Jewish State that necessarily favors some citizens over others. He does not acknowledge that there are a growing number of people who are doing so, and raising issues that were long swept under the carpet. Nor does he predict that if Israel were to relinquish the territories in favor of a Palestinian State, the issue of the Jewish State’s discrimination against its own citizens would still have to be addressed.
Of course, Siegman is correct in noting that Israel is dishonestly whining about challenges to the occupation/settlements, falsely claiming that these challenges also question the legitimacy of a Jewish State.
Once, Siegman’s words (though conventional wisdom among those following the conflict within academic and intellectual circles) would strike as the greatest offense if published in a mainstream newspaper. Siegman’s straightforward observations signal that the character of Israeli settlement policy and their oppressive effect of resigning Palestinians into caged camps cannot be ignored any longer. Israel can ignore the tell-tale signs at its own peril. BDS offers a way out for Israel to join the international community by respecting the very basic and existential rights of the Palestinians – but Israel’s knee-jerk and preemptive reaction against it further establishes that Israel not only delegitimizes itself, but also contributes to its own (growing) pariah status.
NEAR THE END OF SEIGMAN’S ARTICLE:
I think Siegman’s article is quite important. He is a very respected and well-informed man. His basic point is that the Israelis claim that criticism of their own bad as well as illegal behavior seeks only to “delegitimize” their country, instead of to right the ship, so to speak. This claim permits the Israelis to ignore the very real damage they have in the past as well as currently done to the Palestinians and to continue to claim victim status. “There is none so blind as he who will not see.”
Let’s hope the Siegman article, and others like it, are educating the monitors at HuffPo, who strike me as profoundly uneducated and insular sometimes.
Israel is shopping for an ally to replace Turkey. Greece is the candidate of choice.
Relations between Israel and Turkey have been increasingly fractious since Israel’s three-week invasion of Gaza a year and a half ago, reaching a low point in May when Israel killed nine Turkish activists in a raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship.
The attack led to the near severance of ties between Turkey and Israel, once close military allies, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has begun to search for other partners in the region, particularly Greece.
link to haaretz.com
August 16, 2010
As usual, the actual opinions of the Greeks and the Turks are not solicited.
The great thing about Witty’s semantic curlicues and constant nit-picking at articles Phil and Adam put up — at anything Phil and Adam do here, as annoying as it is to the rest of us — is that it forces the general readership to check out the originals.
All that is really necessary is to turn in the opposite direction from whatever RW says.
I’m glad that you are defending Siegman’s post. It is concise, well-written, effective content.
If I had, you would have criticized the post.
You all are so predictable, not exactly independant thinkers in that sense.
“You all are so predictable, not exactly independant thinkers in that sense.”
Independent thinkers?! Let me see here..two days ago you made a pathetic comments; that the ethnic cleansing was “mutual”and that the Palestinians were mostly recent immigrants to the lands from neighbouring countries ( implying that they were not more entitled to the land as the Jews are), taking in your stride one of the most documented hoaxes in the history of the conflict, Joan Peters’ “From Time Immemorial” thesis..This has been amply debunked yet you gobbled it hook and sinker! And to add insult to injury you cited Rashid Khalidi to back it up and who quite evidently does not subscribe to this lunacy..I wanted to respond to your trash then but had no time for it alas…
For more light on this matter, the new book by the Palestinian historian Basem Ra’ad , a professor at Al-Quds University in occupied East Jerusalem who for the past two decades, has been researching the ancient past of Palestine, much of which concerns the Western and Israeli appropriation of ancient languages and cultures, from the Canaanite alphabet to the Canaanite pantheon of gods and goddesses. His new book ” Hidden Histories: Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean” is something you need to get acquainted with not the falsehood dear to Peters and Dershowitz.
Jonathan Scott interviews him here:
link to electronicintifada.net
A snippet of the interview:
Yes Richard, you’re still pushing Israeli history from the 1970s and before, and we’re not independent thinkers? Do you have the courage to at least step into the 1980s and start reading some of the New Historians?
“If I had, you would have criticized the post.”
For a start, you would never have written a piece that was concise, well-written, with effective content.
Right, Witty, we all criticise anything that you support because we like to annoy you. None of us have anything better to do. So you really believe the world revolves around you, huh? Grow up.
If RW had written Siegman’s post, it would not have been concise, well-written and effective. Or correct.
Isn’t this a personal attack on the collective audience of Mondoweiss? How did this get through moderation, exactly? Are examples of trolling being posted for any specific reason?
Richard, I’ve been familiar with Siegman’s writings on this for several years and like him, in part because he’s honest enough to admit that Israel commits war crimes. Here he is talking about Gaza–note that his position flatly contradicts your own.
link
So I respect him even when, as in this article, he clings to the liberal Zionist myth that 1967 was somehow much different from 1948. When I tell people here that there are some liberal Zionists who are honest about Israel’ crimes, so I can respect them even if I disagree with their Zionism I’m thinking of people like Siegman. You’re not like him. You couldn’t have written this article either.
And here’s another Siegman article. It’s funny that Witty thinks he could be writing Siegman’s pieces. He’s obviously not familiar with Siegman’s views.
link
Did you read my blog? Its more similar than dissimilar to Seigman’s.
You confuse my reaction to your and others’ assessments of Hamas as not worthy of criticism (except for your token acknowledgements) in the scheme of things.
Of primary note, our goal of humane Zionism is consistent.
That differs from the political goal of single state, or from the renunciation of any responsibility on the part of the IDF for Israeli civilian lives.
Our differences are in the question of extent. Even on the November 4th question, Seigman did not describe the incidents as Israeli negation of the cease-fire (blame), but the event itself as an exception stimulating both to violate the terms.
One is observation and suggestion as to alternative Israeli policy. The militant view is one of advocacy for revoluton. Siegman does not do that.
He advocates for reforms.
And, those differences are slight.
Have you asked Siegman if he felt that ANY military response to the post hudna rocket firing was relevant?
If he answers “yes”, then his and my views are closely alligned, as we both criticized the extent, and both in our independant writings, not on this far leftist island.
“Did you read my blog? Its more similar than dissimilar to Seigman’s.”
Your blog has no similarities whatsoever to Siegman’s writings. Everything Siegman has written contradicts your propaganda completely.
“Of primary note, our goal of humane Zionism is consistent.”
Siegman doesn’t have a goal of humane Zionism, because unlike you, he’s come to realize that such a notion is a fantasy.
“Our differences are in the question of extent.”
You differences are that he accepts reality and you do not.
Siegman already accepts that Israel is an apartheid state.
Siegman recognizes there is no daylight between the actions and policies of Kadima and Likud, while you pretend that Kadima will bring peace if they are elected.
Sirgman recognizes that no Israeli government will ever allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank.
Siegman recognizes that what is unacceptable to Hamas is also unacceptable to Fatah, while you insist otherwise.
In essence, Siegman acknowledges everything you refuse to accept.
Sirgman accepts that “Hamas declared an end to suicide bombings and rocket fire when it decided to join the Palestinian political process, and largely stuck to it for more than a year”, while you maintain otherwise.
“Even on the November 4th question, Seigman did not describe the incidents as Israeli negation of the cease-fire (blame), but the event itself as an exception stimulating both to violate the terms.”
Really? Please link to the article in which he disputes that Israel broke the ceasefire.
Siegman does not advocate for reform, he advocates for pragmatic and strong action against Israel. Siegman states very plainly that Israel will never give up control of the West Bank. Of course, you already demonstrated that you can read an article and arrive at a conclusion that no one else does.
“Have you asked Siegman if he felt that ANY military response to the post hudna rocket firing was relevant?”
Why don;’t you bother reading the article where Siegman addresses this very topic Witty?
Sirgman writes:
“This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza’s population.”
Let me spell it out for you again Witty. Siegman states very clearly that Hamas offered to extend the truce and Israel rejected the offer. He states that Israel “could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try.” In other words, Siegman clearly rejects your position 100%.
“If he answers “yes”, then his and my views are closely alligned, as we both criticized the extent, and both in our independant writings, not on this far leftist island.”
Your Island is called delusion and denial.
Witty, nobody reads your blog. Myself, the novelty wore off quite a while ago. Some jokes go stale quickly.
“It’s funny that Witty thinks he could be writing Siegman’s pieces.”
Yes, I found that amusing too. It’s a bit like someone who has never played he piano suggesting that he could play Rachmaninov’s 3rd Concerto if only he had a piano.
“It’s a bit like someone who has never played he piano suggesting that he could play Rachmaninov’s 3rd Concerto if only he had a piano.”
I’ve often thought I could reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity if I could just spare a couple of hours to think about it.
Your reply to Witty was very good–I’m glad you took the time as it was worthwhile pointing out the absurdity of Witty’s claims, but I wouldn’t have had the energy to do all of Witty’s homework for him. Witty simply can’t put aside his tribal thinking–he can’t use one standard of human rights to judge the actions of both sides, which Siegman obviously can do. Witty just sees Siegman still shares some of his ideals and he doesn’t see the huge gulf between them–Witty can’t see anything that threatens his belief system or his self image.
I agree with Siegman that the delegitimisation argument is mostly bunk, but that it may indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A nation that refuses to set borders is never going to be stable. The UN made a grave mistake in admitting Israel, they should have insisted Israel withdraw to borders as specified in the UN Partition Plan. Though Ben Gurion removed any reference to borders from the Israeli Declaration of Independence (they were in the draft), it still refers to UN181 as the source of Israel’s legitimacy – along with the Balfour Declaration. Israel is clearly now and has always been in violation of those two documents. Therefore…
The even larger error was not insisting on the return of the refugees before recognizing the Israeli state.
Agreed. It’s hard to fathom.